[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 8 December, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.534 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Lalitendu Mishra
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
08.12.2025
Order No. I.A. No.1233 of 2025
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well
as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent.
3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner-Appellant, it is directed that realization of fine
amount under the impugned judgment in TR Case No.163 of
2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Bhubaneswar shall remain stayed till disposal of
the appeal.
4. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
5. This interlocutory application has been filed by the
Petitioner-Appellant seeking his release on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant as well
as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant, at the outset,
contended that being aggrieved by the judgment dated
24.03.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in TR Case No.163 of 2023,
the Petitioner-Appellant has approached this Court by filing the
present appeal. He further contended that by virtue of the
impugned judgment, the Petitioner-Appellant has been found
guilty and he has been convicted under Section 21(b) of NDPS
Act, 1985 and he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner-Appellant further contended that the Petitioner-
Appellant is languishing in jail custody since 24.03.2023, i.e.
from the initial date of his arrest. As such, it was contended that
the Petitioner-Appellant has already undergone sentence of two
years and eight months out of seven years sentence. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further contended that out of three
witnesses who were examined form the side of the prosecution,
two are official witnesses and the other is an independent
witness. So far as the independent witness is concerned, it is
stated that he has turned hostile. With regard to the official
witnesses, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Appellant
concerned that there are many discrepancies which would lead to
acquittal of the Petitioner-Appellant in the present case. He
further contended that taking into consideration the quantity of
the contraband article seized, which is less than the commercial
quantity, that the Petitioner is languishing in custody for more
than two years and eight months and that the appeal is not likely
to be taken up in near future of hearing, the Petitioner-Appellant
be enlarged on bail on any stringent terms and conditions.
8. Learned counsel for the State-Respondent, on the other
hand, objected to the release of the Petitioner on bail on the
ground of gravity and seriousness of the allegation. He further
contended that there exists a prima facie case against the
Petitioner-Appellant as he has already been found guilty by the
trial court upon conclusion of the trial. He further expressed his
apprehension that in the event the Petitioner-Appellant is
released on bail, there is every likelihood that he might be
involved in similar nature of offence. However, on instruction,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Petitioner-
Appellant does not have any similar criminal antecedent.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on
record, further taking note of the period of sentence already
undergone and the fact that the Petitioner-Appellant does not
have any criminal antecedent, and taking note of the fact that the
appeal is not likely to be taken up in near future, this Court
directs that the Petitioner-Appellant be released on bail by the
learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Bhubaneswar or the court in seisin over the matter in TR Case
No.163 of 2023 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
forty thousand) with two local solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter.
The court in seisin over the matter shall also impose any other
conditions as deemed fit and proper. It is made clear that
violation of any of the conditions, which are likely to be
imposed by the trial court, shall entail an automatic cancellation
of bail.
10. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
